Cash for commuting

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by vaudegiant, Jan 15, 2006.

  1. vaudegiant

    vaudegiant New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    In today's Age,

    "STATE cabinet is coming under internal ALP pressure to consider radical solutions to Melbourne's worsening traffic congestion.
    These include giving financial bonuses to motorists who agree to use their cars only during off-peak times...........
    He calls on the Government to consider cut-rate registration fees for motorists willing to use their cars only outside peak congestion times."
    "For this to succeed, the charges would have to be substantially lowered and/or further incentives introduced," he writes. "A similar discount could be made available for weekend-only use."


    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fix-road-snarls-cabinet-urged/2006/01/15/1137259945050.html



    It would seem that financial incentives are now on the table, but in reference only to motor vehicle owners. Might be a good time to send Tony Robinson a little note suggesting that if car owners are going to be paid not to drive (how will they police this????) then surely commuting cyclists deserve similar consideration.

    [email protected]



    Pat
     
    Tags:


  2. 531Aussie

    531Aussie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,606
    Likes Received:
    137
    nice idea, but as you say, difficult to monitor, I suppose. Good that there's some sense in the papers

    At least I can direct the next boofhead motorist I speak to the article.

    I rode 18,000km last year, but I drove only 8500km (!!!), virtually none of which was in peak hour, but I still payed the $540,000,000,000 rego for me car
     
  3. Marx SS

    Marx SS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn’t it be easier to encourage (Melb) CBD businesses to introduce wider range of work hours, taking advantage of earlier & later shift hours for more office-based businesses?
    That would alleviate peak hour traffic & open up opportunites for public transport to profitably run wider enhanced schedules. Also there would be flow on effects for retail businesses making Melb the kind of town that almost never sleeps….
     
  4. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    vaudegiant wrote:
    > In today's Age,
    >
    > "STATE cabinet is coming under internal ALP pressure to consider
    > radical solutions to Melbourne's worsening traffic congestion.
    > These include giving financial bonuses to motorists who agree to use
    > their cars only during off-peak times...........
    > He calls on the Government to consider cut-rate registration fees for
    > motorists willing to use their cars only outside peak congestion
    > times."
    > "For this to succeed, the charges would have to be substantially
    > lowered and/or further incentives introduced," he writes. "A similar
    > discount could be made available for weekend-only use."
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/dg2mm
    >
    >
    >
    > It would seem that financial incentives are now on the table, but in
    > reference only to motor vehicle owners. Might be a good time to send
    > Tony Robinson a little note suggesting that if car owners are going to
    > be paid not to drive (how will they police this????) then surely
    > commuting cyclists deserve similar consideration.


    Why do we need middle class welfare to ride bikes?

    They're already cheaper, faster (sometimes!) and much better for us.
    Building regs these days (so I believe) require facilities for bike
    parking and changing clothes etc too I think?

    Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
    incentive does anyone need?!
     
  5. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah! If anything cycling's getting TOO popular! Another at the office joined the ranks of commuting cyclists today, I may have to wait for a shower if this carries on!

    In all seriousness though there's a bit of inequity going on here. My bike's my transport so I should be able to salary sacrafice my bike, running expenses etc just the same as one whos transport is a car. How come they get to reduce their taxable and we don't? That's just plain not fair.

    Forget that I come out way ahead in the long run 'cause bikes are so much cheaper, that's not the point. Motorists can salary sacrafice, cyclists can't. That's wrong.
     
  6. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    EuanB wrote:
    > Bleve Wrote:
    > > vaudegiant wrote:
    > > > In today's Age,
    > > >
    > > > "STATE cabinet is coming under internal ALP pressure to consider
    > > > radical solutions to Melbourne's worsening traffic congestion.
    > > > These include giving financial bonuses to motorists who agree to use
    > > > their cars only during off-peak times...........
    > > > He calls on the Government to consider cut-rate registration fees

    > > for
    > > > motorists willing to use their cars only outside peak congestion
    > > > times."
    > > > "For this to succeed, the charges would have to be substantially
    > > > lowered and/or further incentives introduced," he writes. "A similar
    > > > discount could be made available for weekend-only use."
    > > >
    > > > http://tinyurl.com/dg2mm
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > It would seem that financial incentives are now on the table, but in
    > > > reference only to motor vehicle owners. Might be a good time to send
    > > > Tony Robinson a little note suggesting that if car owners are going

    > > to
    > > > be paid not to drive (how will they police this????) then surely
    > > > commuting cyclists deserve similar consideration.

    > >
    > > Why do we need middle class welfare to ride bikes?
    > >
    > > They're already cheaper, faster (sometimes!) and much better for us.
    > > Building regs these days (so I believe) require facilities for bike
    > > parking and changing clothes etc too I think?
    > >
    > > Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
    > > incentive does anyone need?!

    > Yeah! If anything cycling's getting TOO popular! Another at the
    > office joined the ranks of commuting cyclists today, I may have to wait
    > for a shower if this carries on!
    >
    > In all seriousness though there's a bit of inequity going on here. My
    > bike's my transport so I should be able to salary sacrafice my bike,
    > running expenses etc just the same as one whos transport is a car. How
    > come they get to reduce their taxable and we don't? That's just plain
    > not fair.


    They pay more taxes, for starters. Fuel is some 50% or so tax.
    Then there's rego, GST on parking, GST on parts, maintenance, oil,
    headache tablets, medicine, gym membership, physio, astrologer etc etc
    etc. Do the sums, you're miles ahead.

    > Forget that I come out way ahead in the long run 'cause bikes are so
    > much cheaper, that's not the point. Motorists can salary sacrafice,
    > cyclists can't. That's wrong.


    Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? :)
     
  7. ritcho

    ritcho New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose they _could_ allow salary sacrificing for bicycles, but the 15,000km a year minimum to get the FBT rate reduction would be out of reach for most.

    You might also consider that leasing and salary sacrificing is a pretty crappy deal at the moment for all except (a) the highest earners; and (b) those that do >25,000km/year (preferably 40,000km). Our high rate of leasing is killing the late model ex-fleet market and leasing companies are adjusting their residual values as a result. I did my sums and decided to buy a car outright this time rather than lease again.

    Ritch
     
  8. In aus.bicycle on 15 Jan 2006 20:02:45 -0800
    Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? :)


    Hello Dorothy Dix, nice to meet you :)

    I've just asked my HR dept if I can salary sacrifice a pushbike.
    Let's see what they say!

    Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?

    New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
    hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?

    Zebee
     
  9. In aus.bicycle on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:48:05 +1100
    Marx SS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Wouldn’t it be easier to encourage (Melb) CBD businesses to introduce
    > wider range of work hours, taking advantage of earlier & later shift
    > hours for more office-based businesses?


    Biggest hassle is that you'd only get early. Why? Because the early
    bird gets the parking, and doesn't leave "on time".

    I bet most people who drive into the city don't leave early. They
    might stay on for a drink, or just not leave hoping to beat the
    traffic.

    You'd have to convince people that if they came in late they'd get
    parking because the ones who came in early would have left. Big ask.

    Zebee
    - who can travel in later on wet days because of all the fair weather
    bikers. On a fine day the motorcycle parking is gone by 8:30, on a
    wet day I can cruise in at 10 and find vacant spots. The only secure
    pushbike parking I've so far found is chockers early too.
     
  10. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    >
    > In aus.bicycle on 15 Jan 2006 20:02:45 -0800
    > Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? :)

    >
    > Hello Dorothy Dix, nice to meet you :)
    >
    > I've just asked my HR dept if I can salary sacrifice a pushbike.
    > Let's see what they say!
    >
    > Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?
    >
    > New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
    > hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?
    >
    > Zebee


    Ew, is your bike on of _those_ old Nutrigrain models? Mine is one of the
    new ones, runs on 5-10% ethanol. Bring on the beer, and wine, and
    spirits...

    Tam
     
  11. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0


    Do you read a whole post before replying or just hit reply and start typing? I'm assuming the latter otherwise you'd have read:

    and seen that I know I'm way ahead of the salary sacraficing motorist.

    There is that, espeically when you have to do MINIMUM kilometers to maintain the tax benefit. That's just so wrong!
     
  12. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-01-16, Bleve (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more

    ^^^^^^

    Oooh! Is it that bad already! Coolies!

    --
    TimC
    Center meeting at 4pm in 3C-273.
     
  13. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-01-16, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > In aus.bicycle on 15 Jan 2006 20:02:45 -0800
    > Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? :)

    >
    > Hello Dorothy Dix, nice to meet you :)
    >
    > I've just asked my HR dept if I can salary sacrifice a pushbike.
    > Let's see what they say!


    It's not yet legal in Australia. So they'll come back and say nay.

    > Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?
    >
    > New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
    > hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?


    I go through about $5 of extra fruit per day when cycling.

    Man, that seriously messes up your digestive system at first, when the
    body is getting used to it.


    I wonder if that parma and pot today counts?

    --
    TimC
    If it weren't for C, we'd be writing programs in BASI, PASAL, and OBOL.
     
  14. PiledHigher

    PiledHigher New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Add on for running costs:

    Service x1/5000km
    Tubes x2/5000km
    Tyres x2/5000km
    Chain x1/5000km
    Cluster x1/15000km
    Chainrings x2/20000km
    Bottom bracket x1/20000km
    Headset x1/20000km
    Wheels x1/20000km
    Frame x1/50000km

    Indicative values only but roughly based on my experience. Of course there are ways to stretch the life of these things further but a novated vehicle is always kept serviced at regular intervals, new tyres etc, why should the bike be any different.

    Of course now some one will tell me that the rode 100,000km on one set of tyres and they were commutiong a thousand k's a week on dirt tracks on the silk cords that were remaining!

    PiledHigher
     
  15. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    PiledHigher wrote:
    >
    > Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
    > >
    > > Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?
    > >
    > > New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
    > > hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?
    > >
    > > Zebee

    >
    > Add on for running costs:
    >
    > Service x1/5000km
    > Tubes x2/5000km
    > Tyres x2/5000km
    > Chain x1/5000km
    > Cluster x1/15000km
    > Chainrings x2/20000km
    > Bottom bracket x1/20000km
    > Headset x1/20000km
    > Wheels x1/20000km
    > Frame x1/50000km
    >
    > Indicative values only but roughly based on my experience. Of course
    > there are ways to stretch the life of these things further but a
    > novated vehicle is always kept serviced at regular intervals, new tyres
    > etc, why should the bike be any different.
    >
    > Of course now some one will tell me that the rode 100,000km on one set
    > of tyres and they were commutiong a thousand k's a week on dirt tracks
    > on the silk cords that were remaining!


    Yeah that was me! How did you know?

    Tam
     
  16. vaudegiant

    vaudegiant New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do we need middle class welfare to ride bikes?

    They're already cheaper, faster (sometimes!) and much better for us.
    Building regs these days (so I believe) require facilities for bike
    parking and changing clothes etc too I think?

    Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
    incentive does anyone need?!


    Those incentives to which you quite rightly refer matter less if drivers are able to obtain further incentives to keep driving. Its a bigger question than whether it's middle class welfare. The consideration is whether to manipulate driver behaviour by rewarding certain types of behaviour. If it is good enough to do this with motorists, then why not cyclists (or more importantly, potential cyclists). If the argument against it is one of unneccessary 'middle class welfare' for cyclists, then the same should apply to motorists, and let's then cancel all subsidies for motoring.


    COLOR=Blue]They pay more taxes, for starters. Fuel is some 50% or so tax.
    Then there's rego, GST on parking, GST on parts, maintenance, oil,
    headache tablets, medicine, gym membership, physio, astrologer etc etc
    etc. Do the sums, you're miles ahead.

    [/COLOR]

    I may well be miles ahead (although many people these days have company cars and are immune to many if not all the costs) but that doesn't mean that the gap should be narrowed by a driving subsidy. Drivers may well pay more taxes (only in relation to car ownership), but I could possibly pay more tax overall than many drivers.

    Considering the negative impact that unneccessary driving is having on Melbourne (financial, environmental, public health, public space etc) and the very many positive aspects of cycling, why shouldn't commuting cyclists be allowed access to what motorists already are.

    Pat
     
  17. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    EuanB wrote:
    > Bleve Wrote:
    > > EuanB wrote:
    > >
    > > > In all seriousness though there's a bit of inequity going on here.

    > > My
    > > > bike's my transport so I should be able to salary sacrafice my bike,
    > > > running expenses etc just the same as one whos transport is a car.

    > > How
    > > > come they get to reduce their taxable and we don't? That's just

    > > plain
    > > > not fair.

    > >
    > > They pay more taxes, for starters. Fuel is some 50% or so tax.
    > > Then there's rego, GST on parking, GST on parts, maintenance, oil,
    > > headache tablets, medicine, gym membership, physio, astrologer etc etc
    > > etc. Do the sums, you're miles ahead.
    > >

    >
    > Do you read a whole post before replying or just hit reply and start
    > typing? I'm assuming the latter otherwise you'd have read:


    You assume incorrectly, but understandably.

    > Euan Wrote:
    > >
    > > > Forget that I come out way ahead in the long run 'cause bikes are so
    > > > much cheaper, that's not the point. Motorists can salary sacrafice,
    > > > cyclists can't. That's wrong.

    > >

    > and seen that I know I'm way ahead of the salary sacraficing motorist.


    Yes, but you're whinging about it being unfair. I don't think it's
    unfair as such, I think the concessions given to car drivers are wrong,
    and that the redress for that is not to take more money out of the
    public purse, but rather, to remove the car driver's welfare system.

    > > Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? :)

    > There is that, espeically when you have to do MINIMUM kilometers to
    > maintain the tax benefit. That's just so wrong!


    Absolutely and utterly agree with you here. The novated lease scheme
    is absurd and environmentally evil. It's a rort such that high income
    earners can get cars for free and then drive them everywhere because
    they have to. It's right up there with negative gearing in terms of
    gross and obscene rorting of the public purse.

    Sorry 'bout the rant, I'm just sick to death of people trying to rip
    off "our" tax system to line their pockets and buy more widescreen
    TV's
     
  18. ghostgum

    ghostgum New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it was legal, but there isn't a concessional FBT rate
    so you pay 48.5 cents in the dollar as FBT. That is, there is
    no financial advantage to doing it, but it is more likely that
    you will be worse off.

    If you work for the government there may be some other loop holes
    you can exploit. My wife worked at a hospital and for a while was
    able to salary sacrifice home loan repayments.
    Perhaps in that sort of job you could salary sacrifice a bike.
    Does the FBT concessional rate for cars also apply to motorbikes?
     
  19. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-01-16, Bleve (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > Absolutely and utterly agree with you here. The novated lease scheme
    > is absurd and environmentally evil. It's a rort such that high income
    > earners can get cars for free and then drive them everywhere because
    > they have to. It's right up there with negative gearing in terms of
    > gross and obscene rorting of the public purse.


    Is negative gearing a necessary evil, perhaps?

    I quite like having cheap (by mortgage standards) rent, because some
    investor is getting most of their money off the government.

    --
    TimC
    "`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
     
  20. Marx SS

    Marx SS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's true, but the traffic would be less to/from work.
    Besides parking space is dependant on availability. There still would the same X number of total commuters spaces as always & I suppose there is always that 5-10% of capacity that's not currently catered for, which is sort elsewhere. But that occurs regardless. If you're on 'lates' as it were, you'll get used to where to find a place for your car/bike/rollerblades.

    I was mostly looking at traffic on the roads & the crush on pblic t/port.
     
Loading...
Loading...